I once had a lecturer who said he chose a certain University for his studies because he knew he could trust the assumptions of his lecturers and supervisors. Can we trust the assumptions of watchdogs of culture and of the media?

As a pretty normal (I think!) New Zealander I have often looked on in distress, if not revulsion, at the commonplace use of what seemed to me the unnecessarily pejorative terms "Right" and "Left" in American political discussion. To me it seems that I have some of both groups' ideas in my worldview. The use of these labels does not help in discussing facts, truths and current events. I've long thought that the terms just muddy the water and prevent clear thinking and communication.

A problem arises though when we recognise that what used to be a peculiarly American issue has spread to us down here. With it the unspoken belief that the "Right" (think of the Act Party or Winston Peters) are only interested in money not people and can be rough with the marginalised in society & with other cultures - racist even. While the "Left" (our Green and Labour friends) is caring, concerned about the poor, minorities and equal rights.

Sound familiar? I think these are the assumed beliefs the media tends to unconsciously approach things with these days. We are relying on the news media being crystal clear, impartial and totally unbiased right? Yet they often seem unaware of their own assumptions.

What follows is a telling evaluation by a very "Left" leaning organisation of one of the foremost people in the effort to protect the West from a Sharia compliant future. Robert Spencer provides comments on a new report from America's Southern Poverty Law Centre regarding 15 supposedly awful "Islamophobic" people (which includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Muslim Majad Nawaz as anti-Muslim bigots for Pete's sake!). The report attacks him for things he's never said and for things he's said which are verifiably true but which they simply just don't seem to like.

This is how all critics of Sharia will tend to be treated in days to come right here in Enzed. Don't let it come as a surprise. Read the account. Spencer recounts some of the report's accusations and provides a rebuttal below. The accusations are italicised.

[Opponents of Sharia and Jihad] are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German,...It’s also passingly ironic that the SPLC list includes several people who are doubtless horrified to be in this company, as they have endeavoured for years to distinguish their message from that of those whom they themselves would smear as “Islamophobes.” But their temporizing and pandering didn’t work: they ended up on the Index of Prohibited Thinkers anyway, as will, ultimately, anyone who dares to note that Islam just might have something to do with the acts of murder committed in its name and in accord with its teachings.

The entry on me is accompanied by a nifty watercolor, but otherwise has little to recommend it, other than as an example of the Left’s strange tendency to present true statements as if they were self-evidently false, without bothering to explain why....“Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” SPLC, October 25, 2016:Robert Spencer — Jihad Watch* // American Freedom Defense Initiative* // Stop Islamization of America*

Robert Spencer is commonly referred to as one of the few real intellectuals in the anti-Muslim movement, and it is true that he is the author of more than a dozen books, two of which made the New York Times Best Seller List. But Spencer is entirely self-taught in the study of Islam,

An odd objection. One cannot be both “self-taught” and a “real intellectual”? In any case, it’s false: I am indeed mostly self-taught in the study of Islam, and make no secret of or apologies for it; every day’s headlines proves me correct. Nonetheless, the fact is that I did first read the Qur’an and began studying Islam in earnest while at the University of North Carolina, in courses taught by Professor Gordon Newby, author of A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, who was coming over from Duke to teach courses about Islam, and Professor David Halperin of UNC.

he has partnered with a woman known as one of the least reasoned enemies of Islam in the country, and he is given to the same kinds of extravagant, and often provably false, claims that characterize most Muslim-bashers.

“Provably false”? Really? Where? When? By whom? Certainly not by the SPLC, either in this hit piece or any other.

Spencer has complained of “Shariah enclaves” and predicted that they will grow across America;

This one epitomizes the dishonesty of the SPLC. The quote comes from an article I wrote in 2007 discussing how Obama was not a Muslim, stating that his obvious affinity for Islam and the Muslim world could make him into “our first Muslim president” the way Bill Clinton was called “our first black president.” After eight years of Obama, I’d say I was proven correct in rather spectacular fashion.

claimed that Islam “mandates warfare against unbelievers” and said that “traditional Islam is not moderate or peaceful”;

Spencer started his own anti-Muslim website, Jihad Watch*, in 2003. In 2010, he co-founded both the American Freedom Defense Initiative* and Stop Islamization of America* with Pamela Geller. In 2013, he and Geller were banned from entering the United Kingdom for at least three years because the pair’s views “foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.” Spencer wrote a Nov. 8, 2011, article in Crisis magazine with a recommended reading list that included such white nationalist books as Jean Raspail’s 1973 Camp of the Saints, an intensely racist novel that depicts France overrun by swarthy hordes of non-white immigrants from India.

I didn’t compile that list and have never read Camp of the Saints — which is not to say that I accept the SPLC’s characterization of it or anything else. It’s ironic that the SPLC would write this while there is a massive problem with Muslim migration into Europe. I have, however, never framed it as a racial issue, which it is not, but have always spoken of it as a problem with bringing in jihadis and Sharia supremacists into Europe, as here.

In his Crisis article, Spencer described multiculturalism as a “heresy” that is intent on “denigrating and ultimately destroying the Judeo-Christian West.”

It isn’t?

IN HIS OWN WORDS

Angered at news about the production of a new line of halal-certified soups, Spencer reacted on Oct. 5, 2010, with a blog post headlined, “Campbell’s Soup goes halal with approval from Hamas-linked ISNA.”

In a Jan. 14, 2006, post on Jihad Watch, Spencer wrote: “[T]raditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”

After the Conservative Political Action Conference made it clear that it was not then welcoming anti-Muslim extremists like him, Spencer described the extremely conservative gathering as a “Shariah-compliant conference.” He was speaking to anti-LGBT radio host Bryan Fischer on March 14, 2013.

Sharia forbids criticism of Islam. So did CPAC. QED.

On Sept. 16, 2011, Spencer told radio host Janet Mefferd that the term “Islamophobia” was created to criminalize criticism of Islam. Muslims “had a big public relations disaster on 9/11,” he said. “They’ve turned it around with amazing skill and I can’t help but think that maybe media is getting some money for this.” In the same interview, he said freedom of religion shouldn’t be “considered absolute” because Islam “impinges upon our freedoms.”

Islamic law forbids criticism of Islam, thus restricting the freedom of speech, and mandates discrimination against women and non-Muslims. These principles are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. The freedom of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion.

Spencer linked “the left” to Islam in a Sept. 19, 2011, radio show. “[T]he left doesn’t really like America or Western civilization and so I think that they see in Islam another entity that doesn’t like Western civilization and so they see it, in it an ally, and that’s essentially what’s going on,” he said.

Yep. Just look at the SPLC and this report. If the SPLC achieves its objective, all voices of opposition to jihad terror will be silenced, and the jihad will be able to advance unhindered and unopposed.

In a Jan. 9, 2015, appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Spencer said a “core principle” of Islam is “the idea of emigrating to a new place to conquer and Islamize it, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing.” He said “Shariah enclaves” will “inevitably grow and continue to grow until, finally, that’s all there is.”

“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him – his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:100)

Spencer claimed at a Feb. 15, 2010, event that it is “absurd” to think that “Islam is a religion of peace that’s been hijacked by a tiny minority.”

Leave a Reply.

I could use your help

In order to prevent a return to truck driving I invite you to hit the RED BUTTON above if you think what I'm doing is worth supporting. The button takes you to my Patreon page where you can hit their RED BUTTON on the top right of that page and choose your amount. ​I appreciate it!